There are a few things that I know to be absolutes in my realm of existence: government is and should be by the people for the people, that efficiency and effectiveness are two indispensable characteristics of any organization, that conservation action isn’t cut and dry but exceptionally complex and often complicated, and that the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) is the crown jewel of wildlife and habitat management organizations in these beautiful United States of America. As of recent, these four facts of life have come to cross paths with one another in a way that they haven’t for some time.

In a recent meeting of the Missouri State Senate Committee for Government Efficiency (similar in intent as the federal DOGE) the MDC was questioned about their use of public funds for combating Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in deer. The result was a very insightful dialogue about the commission’s work, including answering questions that senators had fielded from their districts. The senators were exceedingly respectful and complementary of the job that the commission has done and continues to do; this came from a few who have personal experience as outdoorsmen, as well as from constituent feedback. While the hearing was respectful, enlightening, and encouraging, the dialogue and subsequent debate online was anything but.

On February 5, 2025, Missouri lawmakers launched a Government Efficiency Portal with the purpose “...to identify government waste, duplication, and inefficiency.” This encouraged citizens to fill out a form that would initiate an investigation into the claims. The hope is that those experiencing the effect of policies made in Jefferson City would point out where they felt waste was occurring, leading to a more efficient and effective government for the citizens of the state. On February 27^th, the first bill proposing establishment of a Missouri Government Efficiency Committee occurred, shortly after which the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency was formed. This committee recently heard from representatives of the MDC discussing the issue of their management of CWD.

The MDC has been operating since it was established in 1936, which makes it the oldest continuously run agency of its kind. Our state conservation agency is funded through a myriad of sources that include federal grants, Pittman-Robertson dollars, licenses, and rentals. However, what makes MDC unique and enviable is that a majority of its money comes from a ⅛ of 1 percent of sales tax, a tax rightly denoted as the Conservation Sales Tax. Over 60% of the MDC’s annual revenue (~$160M) comes from this tax, one that is constitutionally mandated here in the Show-Me State.

Now let's talk about the previously mentioned intersection of all these issues. In the last decade, there has been a concerted effort to amend the Missouri State Constitution to remove the Conservation Sales Tax. At the same time there now seems to be a consistent wholesale opposition to the MDC based on their management of CWD throughout the state. Added to that number, there is a concentrated group of waterfowl hunters who have written off the MDC for its management of our “duck parks” and the blinds on the Mississippi River. It seems that all of these groups have begun to find one another and cross-pollinate. This is causing what I consider to be a dangerous amalgamation of negative sentiment towards an agency that has served the state, its outdoor enthusiasts, and the wildlife and wild places that have been placed in their care.

It seems that all of these groups are like-minded in that they wouldn’t mind the MDC dissolving and are at least tacitly advocating for that collapse. If this were to occur, we would join other states like Colorado, Washington, California, and our closest neighbors Illinois and Iowa, who allow politically-elected or appointed positions to have an overwhelming authority in setting game laws, rather than the wildlife agency itself. In each of these states, the legislative branch of the state government is who oversees and controls the funding to these departments, and worse some even allow popular vote by the entire populace to dictate game and fish regulations. If that seems like an innocuous modus operandi, I would like you to consider the wolf reintroduction in CO. The reintroduction was opposed by state and national biologists and ecologists en masse, however, because of ballot box biology and misinformed public opinion, the civilian population in Denver and Colorado Springs won the day. Now Colorado has a wolf problem that won't soon subside.

While we here in Missouri aren’t in danger of a wolf reintroduction, imagine allowing the voting public, most of whom do not hunt or fish, to be able to direct biologists, ecologists, veterinarians, and us outdoorsmen on what we can and cannot do with our communal resources. For example, imagine people in St. Louis, Columbia, and Kansas City deciding it to be absurd that one person would kill five deer in a season, something that can be done on basic permits, and then petitioning to end the ability for hunters to do so. Then the entire state being able to vote “yes” or “no” on your access and right to hunt or deciding what’s best for the health of our deer herd. This is what these groups are inviting when they seek to dismantle the MDC. They have a complaint, and I am open to it being a legitimate one, but their desired fix is short-sighted, especially when you consider they have no day-after plan.

We need to recognize what we have in the MDC and its board of directors. We need to recognize who our commissioner is, his history, and the expertise he brings with him. We must acknowledge who the employees of the MDC are and what the alternative to having that looks like. What we need is less people trying to tear down what they disagree with and start helping to make it better by contributing to the mission. Like my momma always told me, “If you aren’t helping to do the work, keep your critique to yourself”.